To Display Money

In discussing the relationship between art and money, Thompson touches on some interesting points which lead me to wonder why it is that donors continue to donate artwork or even funding to museums. For instance, Thompson notes that despite being urged by officials to list the value of their entire collection (which includes the “locked-away” portion) on their accounting sheets, museum curators refuse to do so on the grounds that they believe “revealing the true value of the collection would signal to donors that the museum has no need of philanthropy; they could simply sell or lease art to finance new acquisitions (187).” Adding to that, Thompson goes on to highlight the case of Burton and Emily Tremaine, a couple who discovered that when they simply gave a work to a museum it usually was placed held in storage for an extensive amount of time. However, when they sold a work to a museum, the museum often displayed the piece as well as generated promotion for it. They came to the conclusion that “curators most appreciated items for which they had to give up a large part of their acquisition funds (188).” Keeping that in mind, why is it do you believe that donors continue to donate when museums are so guarded and standoffish when it comes to being open about their possessions and economic state, and when curators seemingly displays only those works they purchased? Furthermore, do you agree with Thompson when he states then when curators do so “purchase price is presented to museum patrons as equal to value (188)?”

In the eyes of the Beholder....

Thompson in The $12 Million Stuffed Shark brings into discussion the potential existence of insider trading in the art world – a topic which we also discussed in class. Thompson particularly addresses this controversial issue in regards to a museum using donor funds to purchase art created by one of its own trustees, as well as a museum director’s purchase of art by an artist who will be part of a show that is not yet announced (discussed in more detail on page 221). In a commodities market this is considered to be illegal insider trading called “front-running”. However, the art market defends such acts by insisting that they are beneficial to all involved. Thompson does not exclude dealers or auction houses from the accusations, bringing to light the often shared information between auction houses such cliental lists and a client’s available capital. In your opinion, do you believe that insider trading does exist in the art market and if so, do you believe its presence is so detrimental to the merit of art that the participants should be fully prosecuted under the law, or do you believe they should be merely reprimanded?

Also, if you’re like me and are not totally sure what insider trading is, here is a link to a definition/description of it by our fine government: :)

http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

Images and Quotations: PART ONE

“They see poetry in what I have done. No, I apply my method and that is all there is to it.” -Rewald, Post-Impressionism, p. 86.

Georges-Pierre Seurat, Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, 1884 – 1886

* * * *

“Above all, don’t sweat over a painting; a great deal of sentiment can be rendered immediately.” - Gauguin, Writings of a Savage, p. 5.

Paul Gauguin, Matamoe, 1892

* * * *

“I am in the midst of a complicated calculation which results in a quick succession of canvases quickly executed but calculated long beforehand.”

– Van Gogh, Complete Letters of Vincent van Gogh, 2:606-7.

Vincent van Gogh, Starry Night, 1889

* * * *

Marcel Duchamp explained that his artistic goal was “to get away from the physical aspect of painting.” – Duchamp, Writings of Marcel Duchamp, p. 125.

Marcel Duchamp, Etant donnés tableau (The Large Glass), 1915-1923

* * * *

Charles Sheeler recalled that in 1929 he began “a period that followed for a good many years of planning a picture very completely before starting to work on the final canvas, having a blueprint of it and knowing exactly what it was going to be.”– Friedman, Charles Sheeler, p. 72.

Charles Sheeler, Amoskeag Canal, 1948

* * * *

Ad Reinhardt wrote in 1953 that a technical rule for painting should be that “every-thing, where to begin and where to end, should be worked out in the mind beforehand.”

– Stiles and Selz, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, p. 89.

Ad Reinhardt, Red Painting, 1952

* * * *

Andy Warhol declared in 1963 that “the reason I’m painting this way is that I want to be a machine.” – Madoff, Pop Art, p. 104.

Andy Warhol, Two Elvis, 1963

* * * *

Sol LeWitt stated that in his art “all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair.” – Zavi, Sol LeWitt, p. 78.

Sol LeWitt, Brushstrokes, 2000

* * * *

Chuck Close explained that creating his images of faces from photographs is done methodically: “I have a system for how the head is going to fit into the rectangle. The head is going to be so bid, it is going to come so close to the top edge, and it is going to be centered left to right.”
–Lyons and Storr, Chuck Close, p. 29.

Chuck Close, Big Self-Portrait, 1967-1968

* * * *

Robert Smithson told an interviewer in 1969, “An object to me is the product of a thought.”
– Smithson, Robert Smithson, p. 43.

Robert Smithson, Spiral Jetty, 1970